MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104810192 · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1460

Enhancing patient involvement in quality improvement: How complaint managers see their roles and limitations

2020· article· en· W3104810192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Clavel, Marie‐Pascale Pomey

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Experience Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplaintQuality (philosophy)Quality managementHealth careMedicinePatient experienceNursingBusinessMarketingService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient involvement is a priority for healthcare organizations seeking to improve the quality of care and services. The contribution that complaint handling can make towards quality improvement has remained underexplored, while healthcare organizations are implementing strategies to effectively involve patients in quality improvement. We conducted a qualitative study to understand how complaint managers see their roles and limitations in enhancing patient involvement in quality improvement. A convenience sample of eleven complaint managers was selected from nine Canadian healthcare organizations with various annual volumes of complaints and situated in different settings (urban, rural, and semi-urban). The data were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach with QDA Miner. The complaint managers saw themselves as having multiple roles that enhanced patient involvement in quality improvement: ensuring mediations with patients and clinical teams, monitoring improvements following a complaint, and informing the quality improvement and operations teams about the patients’ experiences. The complaint managers also reported limitations in their roles, such as the need to respect confidentiality that excluded patients from decisions about improvements and their hierarchical independence in the organization that kept them away from continuous quality improvement activities. Interestingly, the participants reported using new, promising practices that helped integrate, both retrospectively and proactively, the patients’ perspectives on quality improvement. Complaint handling can be effective, though it is a seldom-used gateway for integrating the patient’s voice in quality improvement. Several challenges need to be addressed to make complaint handling a more substantial element in the strategies for involving patients in healthcare organizations. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Quality & Clinical Excellence lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Experience JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207